Pronouncing judgements on the merit of cases
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Gopal Sengupta
It refers to Senior Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Rafique-ul Huq who said the culture of changing verdicts with changes in power must be stopped to ensure human rights, justice and democratic progress. Judgements are not being pronounced on the merit of the cases. The same judge is pronouncing judgements differently on a similar issue with changes in power. He thinks enforcement of human rights needs establishment of rule of law. And to establish rule of law, the court needs to be independent, courageous and should not consider any party affiliation. He fears contempt rule might be issued to him for saying so. Somewhere he had said it becomes contemptuous for them if anyone sneezes and the court issued a contempt rule to him.
He went on saying the condition of court is really grave. No one will go to court unless s/he commits a grave sin. If the whimsical acts of judges are not stopped, human rights cannot be established as the government has enacted a law regarding human rights and defined it from a very wider spectrum but the question is how to implement it. 'If anyone goes to Court 1, S/he will get a type of judgment and if S/he goes to Court 5, the judgment will be different. Moreover, he also alleged that sometimes the verdict depends on who is moving the case. As the lawyers often say among them that someone went to Jamaat's court, some one to Awami League's court, another went to BNP's court. Lawyers feel sorry for this. Think of the level lawyers have degraded to. How could you establish human rights with such a condition of court?' it could change the human rights scenario.
The judiciary with constitutional sincerity of purpose has recommended names of persons to be appointed to the High Court and reliable information discloses that the Supreme Court collegiums have cleared the names. Why then the delay? Frankly, nobody has any clear answers. There are three main structural inadequacies that have contributed to the sad state of judicial administration in Bangladesh: (a) a lack of coordination between the multi power centers in appointments to the higher judiciary, (b) a pathetically low population-to-judge ratio, and (c) abysmally low spending on the judiciary.
Of course, if the government is in the process of investigating any aspect of the proposed candidate's merits or credibility, then for such reason it may seek extension of time. However, for the system to be effective, it is important that all this should be done within stipulated time frames.
In the current system, it is possible for the government to take unlimited time to verify the credentials of the candidates. Such retention of files by the government seriously undermines judiciary's independence. The last not the least issue is the inadequate population-to-judge ratio. Now to the issue of expenditure. The country spends so little on the judiciary that it must be one of the few countries in the world where the income from court fees is more than the expenditure on administration of justice. Given the bleak scenario the plaintiff cry from the judiciary may well be: "You don't staff me properly, you don't fund me adequately, how do you expect me to deliver justice?"
The writer lives in Canada and can be reached at e-mail : gopalsengupta@aol.com
It refers to Senior Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Rafique-ul Huq who said the culture of changing verdicts with changes in power must be stopped to ensure human rights, justice and democratic progress. Judgements are not being pronounced on the merit of the cases. The same judge is pronouncing judgements differently on a similar issue with changes in power. He thinks enforcement of human rights needs establishment of rule of law. And to establish rule of law, the court needs to be independent, courageous and should not consider any party affiliation. He fears contempt rule might be issued to him for saying so. Somewhere he had said it becomes contemptuous for them if anyone sneezes and the court issued a contempt rule to him.
He went on saying the condition of court is really grave. No one will go to court unless s/he commits a grave sin. If the whimsical acts of judges are not stopped, human rights cannot be established as the government has enacted a law regarding human rights and defined it from a very wider spectrum but the question is how to implement it. 'If anyone goes to Court 1, S/he will get a type of judgment and if S/he goes to Court 5, the judgment will be different. Moreover, he also alleged that sometimes the verdict depends on who is moving the case. As the lawyers often say among them that someone went to Jamaat's court, some one to Awami League's court, another went to BNP's court. Lawyers feel sorry for this. Think of the level lawyers have degraded to. How could you establish human rights with such a condition of court?' it could change the human rights scenario.
The judiciary with constitutional sincerity of purpose has recommended names of persons to be appointed to the High Court and reliable information discloses that the Supreme Court collegiums have cleared the names. Why then the delay? Frankly, nobody has any clear answers. There are three main structural inadequacies that have contributed to the sad state of judicial administration in Bangladesh: (a) a lack of coordination between the multi power centers in appointments to the higher judiciary, (b) a pathetically low population-to-judge ratio, and (c) abysmally low spending on the judiciary.
Of course, if the government is in the process of investigating any aspect of the proposed candidate's merits or credibility, then for such reason it may seek extension of time. However, for the system to be effective, it is important that all this should be done within stipulated time frames.
In the current system, it is possible for the government to take unlimited time to verify the credentials of the candidates. Such retention of files by the government seriously undermines judiciary's independence. The last not the least issue is the inadequate population-to-judge ratio. Now to the issue of expenditure. The country spends so little on the judiciary that it must be one of the few countries in the world where the income from court fees is more than the expenditure on administration of justice. Given the bleak scenario the plaintiff cry from the judiciary may well be: "You don't staff me properly, you don't fund me adequately, how do you expect me to deliver justice?"
The writer lives in Canada and can be reached at e-mail : gopalsengupta@aol.com